How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

[lougle]

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

I don't think it's unreasonable in the circumstance to ask for some kind of clarification on the rules.

Seriously though, I did not intend to cause a problem for MNHQ

It only causes a problem for people who are absolutely desperate to catch MNHQ out and paint them as terrible hypocrites.

Why they are so desperate to do so is baffling.

I just can't believe that anyone finds that poem offensive.

they get banned without warning seemingly depending on who is moderating.

Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true.

Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true.

Nobody told me anything on facebook, MNHQ confirmed they stop communication when they ban people on another thread.

The OP is asking for clarification regarding something

No she isn't, she's saying 'ner ner I caught you out you hypocrites!'

many posters are just starting to get confused about what is acceptable and what isn't and would like some clarification other than "We take each person on a case by case bases and use the talk guidlines loosely"

Isn't that clarification enough?

Justine spent a whole thread clarifying this; there are no hard and fast rules, they just try to apply common sense.

I was as about the PL thing as anyone, but seriously you're starting to alienate people with this now.

Only if they feel there is nothing to be gained from discussing it further. So a Troll won't get to tie up their time with waffle but a reasonable member of the site can talk about the ban and how they can best move forward to get it lifted.

IPityThePontipines: Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true

I know this is off-topic, but that phrase pretty much sums up 2016 politics for me...

I was as hmm about the PL thing as anyone

I don't know what the PL thing you are refeering to is.

Only if they feel there is nothing to be gained from discussing it further.

But what about the case of wannabe or jason, been here years but cut all comunication?

And again this is what has been confirmed from HQ from threads in sitestuff, so it happens.

Is this post about specific posters such as Jason and Wannabe?

Is this post about specific posters such as Jason and Wannabe?

No, but having been told i shouldn't belive gossip from face book i decided to explain the threads in which i learnt this actually happens. It's not stuff from facebook it's from HQ.

I should add that i really do think HQ are good with their case by case thing.

But as the site has and is growing they do seem to need more than just vauge guidelines in place.

It's my understanding that WannaBe is perfectly entitled to contact MNHQ and discuss her suspension.

It's my understanding that WannaBe is perfectly entitled to contact MNHQ and discuss her suspension.

She tried that, but it took coming on here with a new account in site stuff in order to get MNHQ to reply to emails.

It's very hard to discuss anything when MNHQ don't reply.

Also, if you find swearing that offensive, maybe don't click on a thread with "cuntweasle" in the title and then scroll half way down the first page to find the offensive post?

Anyway, this is a tangent. My point was that the guidlines could do some revision and consistancy.

I suspect it's more a case of them replying in their own sweet time TBH. Which is a bit unfair, but like they've said recently, it's their site and they can do what they like.

I haven't seen your thread, squishy but you are kinda tempting me into it

But as the site has and is growing they do seem to need more than just vauge guidelines in place

There are plenty of forums with rigid guidelines if that's what you want.

Also, if you find swearing that offensive, maybe don't click on a thread with "cuntweasle" in the title and then scroll half way down the first page to find the offensive post?

There are plenty of forums with rigid guidelines if that's what you want.

Where have i said i want this?
It's perfectly possible to have a middle ground. The site has changed over the years, it's attracting lots of people who comment on daily mail articles, it's a bit of a joke to come here and troll about the batshit crazy threads they highlight.
The guidelines could be reworked to take this into account.

Last week MNHQ did a brilliant job of removing disablist posts from a thread before bandwagon jumping and derailing began.
Because the big provocative posts were delt with it meant the little things weren't nitpicked at, the situation didn't build. It worked brilliantly and the whole "Leave things up for education" aspect worked.

When MN works it works brilliantly.

shamelessly placemarking to see MNHQ's answer

The problem is there are many different opinions on how it should work, JustAnother.

Some people want more moderation, some people are pissed off because they feel it has become overly moderated.

HQ can't please everybody they just have to take things thread by thread.